The Venezuelan government issued a decree (Decree 6649) back in March 2009 which sought to forbid “superfluous or luxury spending in the national public sector”. These so called ‘luxuries’ include mobile phones, the use of the Internet and other technological equipment. Things that we take for granted in the West as a neccessity. This has sent shockwaves throughout the online community who are increasingly concerned about the impact that this will have on the capacity of ICTs to foster social development and economic growth. They fear that education, research and development projects will be severely hampered if internet use is further eroded by what Chavez defines as ‘rational’ use.

In response to these draconian measures a wave of internet activism has sprung up and a cyber-war has begun. The University of the Andes has launched a campaign, Internet Prioritaria (Essential Internet), to raise awareness of the importance of access to the Internet and pressurize the government to amend the decree.

We seek to revise the inclusion of Internet and its technological infrastructure in the list of superfluous and non-essential items published in Decree 6649.

To maintain research and educational programs that is made possible because of the Internet.

To maintain the status of Internet use as a priority, to develop technologies associated with Internet use that could be helpful in the public sector, and to support research on information technologies.

To place the use of these technologies in the discussion around Venezuelan media so there could be a deep dialogue on the weight of Internet in development, as well as the importance of digital literacy.

The campaign has embraced all kinds of new media. They have used the power of social networking sites to get their voices heard by using YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Numerous blogs and other digital spaces have also joined in. However the views of the Venezuelan blogosphere are divided. Some argue that the decree is another attempt to restrict freedom of speech. Whilst others feel that these cyber-activists are over-reacting to this new law and purposely trying to raise alarm. One blogger argues that there has been a misinterpretation of the new decree:

“The decree says clearly that the main goal is to “optimize savings in the public sector.” This does not mean that the Internet is going to be banned or eliminated; it means that it is necessary to purge this activity, even if it is a very reasonable and necessary activity, “using limited resources in a better way.”

The campaign should be devoted to INFORM and to point out clearly what are the elements that could make Internet a sumptuary expense. They should talk about how social organization can help to generate more “solidarity” in their proposals.

The government has defended its decisions by arguing that they don’t want to ban the internet and are merely putting more focus and funding into economic priorities.

Whatever your viewpoint, this kind of cyber-activism has opened up a debate forum for bloggers across Venezuela to discuss issues of freedom of speech, media censorship and the role of the internet in the development of their country. If one good thing has come from this decree, it is that at least people are now openly talking about the issues affecting the media.

To put the impact of this decree into context it is worse a brief look at the academic discourse surrounding the relationship between ICTs and economic development. Howard (2007) argues that digital communication techonologies play a critical role in economic and political development whilst Lugo-Ocando (2008) recognises the direct links between economic wealth and the development of an information society in Latin America. The role of the internet in development should not be underplayed. Stratton (2000) argues that it promotes non-english cuture to the world through cyberspace as webpages, podcasts and blogs have, espcially in the case of Venezuela, created imagined communities and greater connectivity between everyday people.

In my opinion this decree will inhibit development and increase the digital divide between the internet ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ both within South America and with the rest of the world. Castells (2000) has already warned that the ‘network society’ is creating wider economic and social disparities across the globe and singled out South America as a continent that could become ‘fourth world’ because of its limited technological advancements. This decree stands directly opposed to media development discourse and it seems Chavez’s decree might force this Castell’s predictions to come true.